menu

 

THE CAMBRIAN PESHER

THE VOICE OF THE DESPOSYNI TO THE AMERICAN DISPERSION

 

The Day of St. Paul's Conversion (January 25, 2004)

 

Brethren:

If I were to tell you that I knew a person who was a descendant of someone who was converted and taught by St. Paul, how do you suppose you would react? Would you be awed or would you shrug your shoulders in indifference? If you cared about your heritage as a Christian, you would likely experience, as I did, this wonderful sensation of closeness to Jesus. Like visiting the Holy Land, it would be an unusual intimacy to something very precious: our heritage in the family of faith.[1]

Yet, others do not respond this way. I am still sometimes amazed that many Christians are indifferent to such revelations. They base their religious enthusiasm on groovy music or the comedians which pass for preachers these days. Often, traditionalists will visit our website and respond with displeasure. Some will sneer and snarl in contempt and disbelief; others will flee to their mental enclaves, refusing to face the possibility that there might be people in the world today who are really connected to a sacred lineage. They love their "old-time religion", but not the one that's too old. Going back to the origins of the Church is too dangerous for these so-called "traditionalists" because it reveals that they have been the innovators: adding and subtracting from the Scriptures - not by cutting the Bible into pieces, of course - but by simply ignoring or glossing the parts they don't like.

David Bercot is a modern author who has experienced this very anomaly. He has written two important books which we make available in our on-line bookstore: Will the Real Heretics Stand Up? and Common Sense. With a follow-up commentary on cassette, he recounts the enthusiasm by Christians everywhere for his first book. It was a simple challenge to Christians to return to the faith of the Early Church. Who could argue with that? What began to trouble him, however, was the phenomenon that many of the people who expressed their excitement came from sometimes opposing factions within the religious spectrum. He wondered how it was possible that rival denominations could both claim support from the writings of the early Fathers? It was only possible because - as he later discovered - they selectively quoted them to support the dogma of their respective churches. Their "cut and paste" approach to the patristic writings was the same as their approach to the Scriptures.

Bercot was dismayed that the wonderful discoveries he had made in his quest for truth were defiled by unclean hands; so he wrote his sequel: Common Sense. In that book he used his logic as a lawyer to challenge this inconsistent handling of the witness of the Fathers. He argued the point that we should rely upon them more to guide us in interpreting the Scriptures. In doing so, he questioned the hermeneutics of most modern denominations which dismiss the notion that the patristic writings represent any matured expression of the faith. Bercot was rewarded with a serious setback in his popularity and discovered - as many prophets do - that the people of God still kill them or flog them. In his case, he was flogged, figuratively speaking, of course. The various groups which had enthusiastically embraced his message before began to accuse him of abandoning the doctrines of the Reformation. They said that he was exalting Church Tradition over the Scriptures and promoting a works religion. Nothing was further from the truth, but the institutional weight of organized religion overwhelmed him to the point that he had to issue a retraction and an apology. He thought it was his fault that so many people misunderstood what he was saying. But in my opinion, it wasn't his fault that they misunderstood. As a Protestant, he simply had not yet seen the internal contradiction of the Protestant system, the doctrine which blinds Protestants to the error of their own faith.

 

The Protestant's First Love

We must not forget the joy and wonder that occurred for millions of people during the Reformation at the rediscovery of the Scriptures. Prior to the Reformation and the Guttenburg press, the Bible was as scarce and elusive for the common people - and even for the clergy - as was a warm bed. With the Latin Mass, iconography was the only Gospel they ever knew.

But pictures are limited messengers because they leave too much to the imagination. The very words of God, on the other hand, provide an amazing discipline to our thoughts. The Reformers grew increasingly aware of this power. They saw the Word of God produce faith and confidence unlike anything the world had seen before. The printed Bible contained within it the silent capability to direct and motivate men to specific courses of action individually, yet on a massive scale. They took to preaching and distributing the Bible to change the world.

However, what began as a wonderful and promising awakening in time became a new source of confusion as sect after sect arose with new doctrines, new interpretations, and new mandates from God. An age of Babel descended upon the Protestant world, sometimes leading to war, persecution, and political intrigue on the one hand, while on the other, producing a continuous stream of separatistic movements as newly expelled heretics - each with a novel intrepration of the Scriptures - challenged the existing Protestant denominations with doctrines they either neglected or expediently disavowed. Although, today, certain fundamentalist sects still stubbornly cling to the idea that the Bible descended from heaven on angels' wings and that they alone are its able interpreters, many are beginning to realize that there is much more to the discovery of spiritual truth.

 

Tota Scriptura?[2]

Is it possible to correctly interpret the last will and testament of a man two thousand years after his death? Among men, the immediate execution of a man's will is imperative while his attorney and those who knew him are still alive to accurately interpret it. Can we imagine the Bible is any different?

Of course, the Reformers, like Wycliffe, believed that the Scriptures were self-interpretive under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, they are if you take into account the complete witness of those who wrote the Scriptures and those who gave them to us. But that is precisely the error of the Protestant world: much of the Scripture is null and void for us today because it has been interpreted away. Bercot thought he mistakenly diminished the Scriptures by referring to the Fathers. Actually, the opposite is true. The best of the Fathers were the most consistent Scripturalists. They had access to an Apostolic tradition which could explain why any particular Scripture was given. Yet even they, as later admissions revealed, had departed from the Scriptural faithfulness of the Desposynic Church, the Church of James and the Lord's brethren. The first Protestants were more loyal to the Scriptures than the established churches before them. Unfortunately, the movement represented an incomplete reformation. Because they lacked any cultural connection with the Jerusalem Church, the Protestants could only guess on the meaning of large sections of the Scriptures or they simply dismissed them as archaic and irrelevant. Like the liberated demoniac whose house is swept clean and empty, because it is empty, as our Lord said, the demon returns to find it as unclaimed territory and brings seven more like himself. The man's end is worse than it was before (Luke 11:26; John 5:14).

So it has become of Protestantism. Because it did not follow the unity of the Scriptures to restore to the Church its place as the Israel of God, it has become worse than the medieval catholics ever thought of becoming. There is a certain sophistication to the Protestant's apostasy which sends the head swimming. At least for the Catholics, they could be pricked from the rebukes of any ploughboy with a Bible in hand. As for the Protestants, who can penerate the venerable halls of their mighty seminaries which have so sanitized the Scriptures that prophets can be safely mocked?

 

Would Paul Approve?

If there ever was a doctrine which was central to Paul's message it was the doctrine of forgiveness. Paul, when he was Saul, was a religious fanatic. He killed Christians and in so doing, thought he was pleasing God. His mind was obsessed with destroying the followers of Jesus. He was under the control of religious demons. Yet he found forgiveness.

What would he say of his Protestant admirers today who use his Epistles to excuse their antinomianism? In them religious fanaticism has taken a different form, yet directed toward the same end: to preserve the status quo. For example, virtually all denominations which still officiate marriage ceremonies on behalf of the state are compromised by a civil religion: a religion of public reputation in the community. This was Saul's religion. He persecuted the Christians because he feared their presence would provoke the Romans to destroy the Jewish nation. That was the formal position of the Sanhedrin. What church of today would want to be branded a cult of religious weirdos with strange ceremonies and customs, even if they were shown to be based upon the Scriptures? What respectable church would ever counsel a couple to live together instead of getting married?[3]

The Grail Church has argued the merits of nude baptism. We wisely don't practice it. Otherwise, we would be rotting in jail for indecent exposure. The Apostle did counsel "not to let your good be evil spoken of" (Romans 14:16). We are content to do the work of leaven.

Regardless, there is no excuse for the fact that no one has successfully challenged, refuted, or otherwise demonstrated the error of our assertion that the early Church did practice this custom. No one has contradicted its Scriptural support. The fact that our position is impregnable does not matter. Nude baptism is too weird to contemplate. Since no respectable denomination practices it, it can be safely dismissed as the rant of a fevered mind.

Paul found his way out of this madness. Yes, Jesus miraculously revealed Himself to him. But that is no exception. He will do the same for you, too, if you will ask Him.

 

To the Unbeliever

I don't expect people to believe in something that happened two thousand years ago based upon my assertions. A lot of people think the answer to unbelief is apologetics. They think that handy quotes and clever logic will convince anyone of the truth of the Gospel. Others are not so optimistic. They say that if you don't believe then something is wrong with you. You refuse to believe because you are wicked. You don't want to be accountable to God, so you embrace atheism.

Is that really fair? For some people, I suppose the shoe would fit. But for most people they rightly resist the claims of any religion with a tenuous record. When religious sects excommunicate each other over the translation of a text or an obscure definition of a Divine attribute, is it any wonder that the neutral onlooker turns and walks away?

If you are an unbeliever, I counsel you to do this simple thing: if you are sincerely objective you should pray to Jesus to make Himself real to you. I don't expect people to believe in a dead Jesus. If Jesus is alive like we claim He is, He will demonstrate His love and power to you in a personal way.

Now, unbelievers shouldn't demand foolish displays of Divine power like lightening from the sky or guys walking on the water. That is not the kind of revelation we need. What we need is the witness that He is alive and that He loves us. This is a personal revelation. Paul's conversion was dramatic. But these essential elements were there: He discovered that Jesus was still alive and that He loved Him, even in the midst of his deadly rage.

 

The Central Mission of St. Paul

The burning question in a lot of people's minds is "what was Paul really all about?" Was he simply some cynical opportunist, as Robert Eisenmann and others maintain, a man closely related to the family of the Herods who served as their operative in subverting Judaism? Certainly, we have evidence that he was related to the Herodian family (Romans 16:11) and some of the Ebionites considered him, like the other Herodians, as an apostate from the law of Moses. Most Christians who knew his past were still fearful of him (Acts 9:26). Even James seems to have been unsure of him at times.[4]

But for all of his faults, we do not find in Paul a cynic. If anything, Paul was earnest to the point of selfless abandon, both before and after his conversion. If we accept just a portion of his writings as authentic - such as Galatians which even the most extreme of liberals will acknowledge - we find a man appalled at the use of religion for purposes of oppression and control. He was a man who despised his past service as a fanatical follower of Judaism. In Galatians we find an advocate of freedom from laws which are contrary to our human natures. He is not a sexist, a racist, or a homophobe.[5] He is truly a man liberated from his demons whose mission is to carry forth that message of liberation - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to the whole world, and not just a chosen few.

There are two instances in the book of Acts where Paul gives an account of his conversion: first, to his fellow-Jews when he was mobbed in Jerusalem, and second, before King Agrippa - a Herodian. In that second account, he explains the mission he received from Jesus:

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

- Acts 26:15-18

The message of forgiveness was the core doctrine of Paul's mission.

 

Forgiveness: the Message of Liberation

What is so important about forgiveness? Without forgiveness, the human soul must bear the burden of guilt. It is through guilt that Satan maintains his grip on the human race. Guilt is the point of entry for demons into the human consciousness. Circle and underline that statement. Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). Forgiven men cannot become demon possessed. They are free. And it is a curious thing that Jesus would often speak words of forgiveness to people before He healed them of their demons - whether mental or physical. Why would He do that? It is because forgiveness is the seed of faith. We can only believe that "God is a rewarder of them which diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6) if we first believe that He has forgiven us. The knowledge of God's forgiveness makes Him approachable.

Many of mankind's diseases are psycho-somatic in origin. If we are sick in our minds and our souls it will manifest itself eventually in our bodies. That is why James tells us that the prayer of faith for the sick will also result in the forgiveness of sins (5:15). Forgiveness heals the spiritual side of man so that his body may heal.

I am troubled by the infatuation of some Christian sects with the doctrine of exorcisms. This is a fault of some elements within Roman Catholicism, as well. Just the other day I saw a movie on this topic. Called the Order, it was yet another scary film with priests holding crosses to chase away demons. There was one new feature which it added to the genre, however. It was that absolution is somehow connected to our liberation from demonic powers. That was good.[6] Forgiveness is the essence of exorcism. When guilt is absolved, then the demons are cast out. The message of forgiveness is central to the dismantling of Satan's kingdom. His strength comes from the claims of retributive justice which separate us from God. When our relationship with God is restored, the demons have to leave.

The Concordant Literal New Testament defines the Greek word for "demon" as "teach" (really, it is "down-teach"). This might seem to be an odd rendering. There are other Greek words for teaching as a form of instruction and guidance. It is from this etymology that we get words like "demonstrate", "demeanor", and "dementia". References like Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Concordance do not help our understanding much, since they prefer to propagate the traditionalist view that demons are evil spirits.[7] Vine's gives us a hint by acknowledging that the root "da" means "to distribute" or "to know", hence "a knowing one". It probably comes from the association in the ancient world with the phenomenon of demon possession - demons being viewed as demigods - when pagan prophets and priests came under the control of these gods and spoke uncontrollable utterances from deep in the throat. It would often alter the sound of the person's voice as if a different individual was speaking through the host body.

The problem with the traditionalist view - as Roman Catholicism illustrates - is its animism: the idea that demons are evil spirits floating around that can latch onto you if you touch something defiled or if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Paul struggled against this superstition both among the Gentiles and the Jews. Meat offered to idols was a big issue. Jews feared demonic attack if they accidently ate meat sold by a pagan temple in the marketplace. So did Paul's Gentile converts. Paul tried to explain to them that demons cannot operate like physical beings from a different dimension. They have no power to alter the physical world. They can only work on the mind. The Christian's concern is in the ethical realm. James forbade the eating of idolatrous foods in Acts 15, not because of some superstition about demons, but because he didn't want Gentile converts present on occasions of idol worship. It was an ethical concern.

Paul's interpretations in 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 and Romans 14 are accurate applications of the Jerusalem ruling in which he explains that the use of meat in pagan consecrations do not change its physical nature. It is still edible food which needs only a Christian blessing to be sanctified.

Today, traditionalists still struggle with these issues. One person fears oral sex because they are afraid of ingesting demons while another refuses to drink an herbal tea because the products might be marketed by a "New Ager". These very fears, because they are not founded upon God's law but upon a human wisdom, produce a besieged mentality which - because of repeated mistakes - results in guilt. This was the condition among the Jews in our Lord's time. If they accidently touched something dead, they were defiled. If they came in contact with semen or menstrual blood, they were defiled. If they ate without washing their hands, they were defiled. On and on it went. It was a maddening fanaticism which led to demonic possession.

Jesus healed the people of these demons, not by grandstanding, but by the simple act of forgiveness. In a few instances, He had to speak directly to the demon to cast it out. But even in those cases, He spoke against their right to stay in the person's consciousness. He spoke to each personality with the authority of His Gospel. In our day, demon possession is called a mental illness and we give the person drugs or therapy to cure him. They don't work. The drugs treat the symptoms of a troubled soul while therapy cannot tell the difference between the sinful nature and the needs of human nature. By saying it is only human to sin, the therapist tries to cure the subjective emotion of guilt without addressing the objective standard which condemns the sinner. Jesus never condoned sin; He simply forgave it and told the people: "Go and sin no more".

Do thou likewise.

a servant of Jesus,

 

James

 

Collect for the Day:

O God, who, by the preaching of thine apostle Paul, hast caused the light of the Gospel to shine throughout the world: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show forth our thankfulness unto thee for the same by following the holy doctrine which he taught; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

 

Footnotes:

[1] If you want to know more about this lovely story, purchase our book, The Soul of Cambria, from our booklist.

[2] Tota Scriptura is a forgotten battlecry of the Protestant Reformers. Meaning "all of the Scriptures", it was a companion motto with the well-remembered "sola scriptura": only the Scriptures.

[3] For a more complete explanation of our position, see Church Policy.

[4] See Galatians 2:9, 12. It seems that this ambivalence was more in character with the emissaries which James sent to Antioch, rather than of James himself. This mission to investigate Paul's activities appears to have been intended to produce a managed "conflict" between Paul and the Judaizers within the Church. This was calculated to lead to the First Ecumenical Council of Acts 15 to resolve the matter. See James' counsel to Paul in Acts 21:17-25 which seems designed to disprove the slander that Christianity was an antinomian movement.

[5] Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." While Paul always stood with the Law of Moses in stern condemnation of homosexuality (Romans 1), he was also compassionate toward those who were trapped as slaves to homosexual masters and eunuchs who had a confusion of roles (Galatians 6:1-2, 10). See eunuchs for more information.

[6] In my book (still out-of-print) The Seed of Cain & the Revival of Mystic Humanism (1987) I quote a missionary of long ago who said of his experience among the heathen: "Where the knowledge of Christ is, and the Gospel is preached, the demons do not come. In places where there is deep faith in the Word of God and the cross of Jesus, having holy communion service frequently, the demons cannot come near at all." Why is this so? God honors His symbols and He honors His Word. Don't neglect them.

[7] I do not agree with modernist thinkers that "evil spirits" are simply bad attitudes or dark emotions associated with mental pathologies, although the etymology of the word "spirit" would allow that construction. I believe that demons are sentient beings. However, I do not believe they are metaphysical in the sense that they can any longer manifest themselves in the phenomenal realm. They exist in the noumenal realm and operate on the mind either through illusion or in faulty reasoning. When a person sees a ghost, he is seeing an inner projection created by a demon, not a thing floating through the air.

menu

archives